'Canadian Shield Case Essay\r'

'Using the Accenture document on brass instrument presented with the Alcan quality, wander Canadian buckler in the appropriate quarter-circle. According to the Accenture document, I would place Canadian Shield within the efficient, predictable operator category. The slack rate of change and need to compete on operative efficiencies characterized by most companies in this quadrant is detailed by the following quote from the case authors. â€Å"Sustainability for Canadian indemnification companies greatly depended on investments in ascertains that increased customer service and improved operational efficiency.” This comment is aligned with the predictable operator alliance practices and is evidence that in order to gain a competitive advantage in the Canadian insurance industry it is vital that operational efficiencies ar recognize with better IT solutions at Canadian Shield and its parent comp some(prenominal), Assurance Centrale Inc. (AC).\r\nIn the key finis goin g forward, is this Seamus’ call? If not, whose determination is it? Who should make the purpose? Under what decision area(s) in the Weill & deoxyadenosine monophosphate; Ross constitution model does this decision fall? As the attraction of In random variableation Systems at Canadian Shield, one of some(prenominal) subsidiaries of Assurance Centrale, Seamus Reynolds was tasked with piloting a new schooling system that could potentially replace the IS’s at all of Assurance Centrale’s regional pipices. phoebe bird eld after starting this plan he was feeling the weight of the responsibility for a project that could eventually transform the broad(a) enterprise. The executives at Canadian Shield and AC should have put together a team of knowledgeable IT professionals, business whole heads, and executives to make sure that the new IS would be selected, budgeted, and utilize properly. Instead they allowed one IT leader in a Calgary-based subsidiary to essen tially determine the course of the entire enterprise’s information systems. This type of decision making identifies with the IT Monarchy type of political science sprints displayed in the Weill & Ross g everyplacenance model.\r\nAccording to the model the IT Monarchy style allows IT executives to stick out the right to make important IT decisions. A more affective mechanism could be put in place by AC in the form of an IT leadership council that includes corporate and business unit CIOs. What do questions 1 & 2 tell us about IT governance at CS? Is it appropriately structured for this kind of decision? As mentioned above, AC and Canadian Shield both reflect signs of the IT Monarchy style of IT governance. It appears that by letting the same IT manager that helped pee the existing problematic information system called alpha spearhead the project of square uping its replacement was a conflict of inte tolerate. In an industry that is heavily bloodsucking on gaini ng a competitive advantage through operational efficiencies and consistently delivering value added projects to the customer, it is essential for AC and CS to rethink the authorized corporate governance model.\r\nAcross almost all of the major IT governance categories, it seems that CS and AC are either lack elements completely or lagging behind current IT standards significantly. IT principles or high-level statements about how to use engine room to create business value is non-existent in the Canadian Shield philosophy statement and problematic to describe within the case write-up by the authors. Furthermore, the corporate IT floor and architecture has become so archaic that the functionality of elementary business applications is troublesome for end users such as insurance underwriters. Based on the previous psychoanalysis I would say that the IT governance in place at both AC and CS are not structured properly to make a potentially enterprise-wide solution decision.\r\nB oth economic and playing period theories tell us how CS should approach the fuck of sunk comprise with respect to the â€Å"current” patch with ISS. Does the traditional pile of sunk costs bear here? Sunk costs are costs that a company cannot recover no proceeds what happens financially in the future. In this case it is hard to the think of the million dollars and five years of time and resources as a sunk cost. However, to AC and Seamus that unfortunately is the truth.\r\nSince the proximity of the new ISS system being apply is close and it has taken so long to go into at this point, taking a traditional view of sunk costs will not be easy for the employees at CS. Despite this sentiment, it is important that executives inhabit objective when determining the future direction of the company. This project should be treated the same as if were any other business project such as a building and if it no longer feasible it should be seen as a sunk cost and a new projec t should be selected for implantation. A sunk cost is not necessarily considered a loss however, if CS decides to abandon the ISS project that is but what it could and in my opinion should be.\r\nHere’s your apparent final question- what would you recommend and why… As surd as it will be for Seamus, I call up that he should consider his IS project a adversity and consult with the executive council in order to score the company for Request for Proposals (RFPs) from outside software vendors homogeneous AIS. The current ISS project is now five years old and almost 5 times over budget and from initial testing end users find it complicated and not user friendly. This could lead to encompassing training, ineffective and inefficient workflows, and further extensive increment projects.\r\nDespite the previously mentioned hurdles to get the ISS off the ground, it is only given a 50 to 70 percent long-term success rate trance the AIS was given better odds. In addition, the AIS solution is already proven to be a sustainable IS syllabus for insurance companies with the promise of successful Canadian mart capabilities. It is unfortunate that Seamus will inevitably develop dissention amid the IS professionals he works with as well as the potential lay off of many of his team members. However, business is business and if Canadian Shield and the rest of Assurance Centrale’s subsidiaries wish to capture a competitive advantage in the 21st century, an ready-to-wear solution such as AIS should be considered immediately.\r\n'